spin_dry Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/13/green-energy-the-race-to-roll-out-super-sized-wind-turbines-is-on.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 Close this content, you can also use the Escape key at anytime Feds must step in or renewable energy will have nowhere to go, says MIT report Devin Coldewey Thu, July 7, 2022 at 1:16 PM Building wind and solar farms is an important part of building a new green grid, but a calm night stops their energy generation cold. It's just as important to research and build green energy storage — and to that at scale requires federal intervention as soon as possible, suggests a new report from MIT. "The Future of Energy Storage" is part of a series looking at the transition of power sources in America, and this one is particularly relevant given the momentum currently enjoyed by the solar and wind industries. Too much renewable energy sounds like a good problem to have, but if it can't be relied on as a city or region's main or only source of electricity, they're going to feel the need to hedge their bets with a coal plant or something like it. The solution is basically batteries: store excess power when the sun is out and the wind is high, and run off them at other times. It's hardly a revelation, but the increasing reliance on what the study calls "variable renewable energy" means that what battery capacity we have isn't nearly enough. We'll need to increase it by orders of magnitude and across the country (and eventually the world, of course — but not every country is equally prepared to make this shift). But the problem is this: Wind farms and solar make money, while storage facilities … don't. Sure, they might break even on the long term, but they aren't the easy money that solar farms have become. The most efficient and green energy storage options, like pumped hydro, are incredibly expensive and limited in the locations they can be built. While the most easily accessed technologies, like lithium-ion batteries, are widespread but neither capacious nor organized enough to serve as a grid supplement. This is where the Department of Energy needs to step in, MIT says. The federal government has the means both to subsidize the utilization of existing storage options and to fund intensive research into new and promising ones. A hydrogen energy storage system could be a game changer, the report notes, but it isn't going to fund itself. Like other critical infrastructure, it must be paid for up front by the feds and paid off over time. But it isn't just about writing checks. The DOE will need to evaluate the feasibility of doing things like repurposing old infrastructure like decommissioned power plants, reusing their connections to the grid and the communities that were built around them. If coal plants weren't simply shut down but rather converted into hydrogen electrolysis centers, the jobs could stay but the emissions would go. And then there's the matter of the cost of the energy itself. The report warns that even with adequate storage, the cost of power would fluctuate far beyond the norms we've established today with our consistent (but dirty) fuel-based sources of energy. Maybe peak power today costs twice as much as off-peak power — but in 10 years, that gap could be much wider. On one hand, the low-end cost would be nearly zero — but peak power might be far more expensive. The electricity market will change a lot, and consumers shouldn't have to wonder whether running the dishwasher will cost them a penny or a buck. Instead, smart modeling of these cost and supply issues should be used to abstract away the variability and provide both consistency for consumers and payback for electricity generators. The U.S. is at a good point for the feds to step in, and if they do so it will be watched eagerly by other countries working on making a similar leap. The report notes that India, for a number of reasons, is also facing a growing power and emissions crisis, and the U.S. may serve as a useful test bed for proving out technologies that could serve their larger population similarly well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 That interview I posted with Oliver stone he talks about when he interviewed the world's top energy scientists who explain how nuclear power is the only reliable clean energy to meet our needs going in to the future... I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted July 9, 2022 Author Share Posted July 9, 2022 9 minutes ago, Anler said: That interview I posted with Oliver stone he talks about when he interviewed the world's top energy scientists who explain how nuclear power is the only reliable clean energy to meet our needs going in to the future... I agree Nuclear is done. Put a fork in it. It ain’t coming back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Just now, spin_dry said: Nuclear is done. Put a fork in it. It ain’t coming back. China and Russia are all over state of the art nuclear power. I imagine some of other parts of the world will hire the Chinese to build them some nuke plants. We will be here watching birds get chopped up in turbines when it's light out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted July 9, 2022 Author Share Posted July 9, 2022 9 minutes ago, Anler said: China and Russia are all over state of the art nuclear power. I imagine some of other parts of the world will hire the Chinese to build them some nuke plants. We will be here watching birds get chopped up in turbines when it's light out. America has close to twice the gigawatts coming from nuclear as does China. While China has a goal of increasing nuclear energy by 70 gigawatts, they have a more aggressive goal of getting 1200 gigawatts from wind and solar. They are finding that wind and solar goals are much easier to meet than nuclear. Do a little digging and you'll find that the nuclear ladder has been a steep one for China to climb. They are blowing America away in solar and wind. Still, Chine has the absolute worst power grid of any industrialized nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_zrt Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Why did Germany just add nuclear to their list of "clean energy" due to the fact of their all in strategy on wind and solar is failing? Why would you trust any info on China? What is your source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted July 9, 2022 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 9, 2022 1 hour ago, spin_dry said: Nuclear is done. Put a fork in it. It ain’t coming back. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s#:~:text=China has 46 reactors planned,to two for the U.S. China has 46 reactors planned or under construction compared to two for the U.S.Nov 2, 2021 https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-greenlights-6-new-nuclear-reactors-in-shift-away-from-coal#:~:text=BEIJING -- The Chinese government,reactors%2C according to local media. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/energy/power/beginning-2023-india-to-start-building-nuclear-power-plants-in-fleet-mode/articleshow/90470373.cms Oops, Spinner dead nuts completely wrong again..Shocker.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 You’d have to be a complete fucking moron not to view nuclear as the only real viable clean energy. All this solar and wind shit is fine for ancillary generation but it will never be the main feature of a robust grid 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Just now, Rigid1 said: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s#:~:text=China has 46 reactors planned,to two for the U.S. China has 46 reactors planned or under construction compared to two for the U.S.Nov 2, 2021 https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-greenlights-6-new-nuclear-reactors-in-shift-away-from-coal#:~:text=BEIJING -- The Chinese government,reactors%2C according to local media. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/energy/power/beginning-2023-india-to-start-building-nuclear-power-plants-in-fleet-mode/articleshow/90470373.cms Oops, Spinner dead nuts completely wrong again..Shocker.. He’s reaching MC levels of wrongness , it’s fucking embarrassing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted July 9, 2022 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 9, 2022 17 minutes ago, f7ben said: He’s reaching MC levels of wrongness , it’s fucking embarrassing Legit, just loves to be fed BS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted July 9, 2022 Gold Member Share Posted July 9, 2022 Cost nuclear is expensive. You have fuel costs and waste cost that are astronomical. If you don’t like the price of your electric bill now, if you want nuclear as your primary energy you will really hate your electric bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted July 9, 2022 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 9, 2022 1 minute ago, BOHICA said: Cost nuclear is expensive. You have fuel costs and waste cost that are astronomical. If you don’t like the price of your electric bill now, if you want nuclear as your primary energy you will really hate your electric bill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 9 minutes ago, Rigid1 said: Wind turbine blades being buried Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted July 9, 2022 Gold Member Share Posted July 9, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Doug said: Wind turbine blades being buried Cant really do that with spent nuke fuel. Turbine blades are cheap to bury comparatively speaking. Edited July 9, 2022 by BOHICA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted July 9, 2022 Author Share Posted July 9, 2022 49 minutes ago, Rigid1 said: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s#:~:text=China has 46 reactors planned,to two for the U.S. China has 46 reactors planned or under construction compared to two for the U.S.Nov 2, 2021 https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-greenlights-6-new-nuclear-reactors-in-shift-away-from-coal#:~:text=BEIJING -- The Chinese government,reactors%2C according to local media. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/energy/power/beginning-2023-india-to-start-building-nuclear-power-plants-in-fleet-mode/articleshow/90470373.cms Oops, Spinner dead nuts completely wrong again..Shocker.. Once again you've shown a total lack of critical thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted July 9, 2022 Author Share Posted July 9, 2022 28 minutes ago, BOHICA said: Cost nuclear is expensive. You have fuel costs and waste cost that are astronomical. If you don’t like the price of your electric bill now, if you want nuclear as your primary energy you will really hate your electric bill. Remember, facts don't matter here. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from nuclear power rose from around $117/MWh in 2015 to $155 at the end of last year, according to the latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, published annually by French nuclear consultant Mycle Schneider. By contrast, the LCOE from solar power decreased from $65/MWh to approximately $49 and that of wind from $55 to $41. The cost difference is having a huge impact in new generation capacity deployment, with just 2.4 GW of new nuclear plants installed last year, compared to 98 GW of solar and 59.2 GW of wind, according to the report. The world’s operational nuclear capacity fell 2.1% to 362 GW by the end of June. “The number of operating reactors in the world has dropped … to 408 as of mid-2020, that is below the level already reached in 1988 and 30 units below the historic peak of 438 in 2002,” the study reported. Six nuclear reactors were grid-connected last year: three in Russia, two in China and one in South Korea. At the same time, five nuclear plants closed last year and three more were shuttered in the first half of this year, with no nuclear facilities added from January to June. An additional eight facilities, which had ceased operations, were decommissioned in 2019. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_dry Posted July 9, 2022 Author Share Posted July 9, 2022 25 minutes ago, Doug said: Wind turbine blades being buried Federal government is paying utility companies billions of dollars to store nuclear waste that was generated before some of the posters here were born. How much does it cost to store those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 3 minutes ago, spin_dry said: Federal government is paying utility companies billions of dollars to store nuclear waste that was generated before some of the posters here were born. How much does it cost to store those? Think of in as nonrefundable tax credits. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted July 9, 2022 Gold Member Share Posted July 9, 2022 53 minutes ago, Doug said: Think of in as nonrefundable tax credits. It would be more along the lines of refundable…. It’s like giving illegal immigrants monthly checks to survive in the US as they pay no taxes…. That is the long term cost of nuclear. It’s just an expensive long term financial burden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 yup red hot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted July 9, 2022 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 9, 2022 5 hours ago, spin_dry said: Once again you've shown a total lack of critical thought. Like just about everything you type, it's pretty much completely wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted July 10, 2022 Share Posted July 10, 2022 On 7/8/2022 at 8:56 PM, f7ben said: You’d have to be a complete fucking moron not to view nuclear as the only real viable clean energy. All this solar and wind shit is fine for ancillary generation but it will never be the main feature of a robust grid Yep, nuke, wind and solar are the ways forward. Neal 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted July 10, 2022 Share Posted July 10, 2022 Just now, NaturallyAspirated said: Yep, nuke, wind and solar are the ways forward. Neal Smaller more localized reactors providing a more flexible grid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.